The art of buffoonery hit new highs yesterday with the announcement by Donald Trump of what he had been promising for three days would be HUGE news. Trump hit Trump-friendly airwaves such as Fox earlier in the week, saying that on Wednesday he would make a BIG announcement concerning the President. Speculation was rife. What could The Donald know that every political operative in a closing election race hadn’t already hoped to find as political ammunition? The big reveal was yesterday at noon on YouTube.

The Donald’s BIG news was… nothing of the sort. Continuing with a variation on the birther argument, he called Barack Obama “the least transparent President in American history” (Richard Nixon might have sprung to mind). The Donald then congratulated himself in the video for having “gotten the President to release his long-form birth certificate – or whatever it may be.” He now says he has a deal for the President.

If Obama “hands over” his college records and passport application records to Trump, he will give $5 million to a charity of the President’s choice. As long as this is done “to my satisfaction,” says The Donald immodestly, he will deliver the check immediately. The forms must be in by October 31. He urged the President to meet the challenge and added that he was speaking on behalf of the entire US population.

The PR Verdict: “F” (Full Fiasco ) to Trump. Donald, you’re fired.

The PR Takeaway: Big talk and bluster equal buffoonery. Donald Trump, the Master Buffoon, has sealed his own PR image with this latest YouTube insanity. His video and language give no reason to suggest this is anything other than a self-serving publicity stunt. Does he know something we don’t? The much anticipated news “from the Desk of Donald Trump” was well-packaged as an unreservedly ego-driven publicity stunt, but the more publicity (of this type), the lower his credibility falls. At this rate, it may soon be political suicide to be publicly aligned with Trump. The sneaking suspicion is that he may not care.

What a week: Tom Cruise allegedly auditioning candidates for wifely duties, DNC firepower in Charlotte and Katie Holmes tells us why she is not afraid of make-up.

Who are this week’s PRV winner and Losers?

LOSER OF THE WEEK: The PR Verdict: F (Full Fiasco) to Tom Cruise and Scientology. Vanity Faircharges that Scientology held auditions for the role of Mrs. Tom Cruise. Church denials are to be expected but the problem is the source is respected publication Vanity Fair, owned by Condé “We Don’t Like Being Sued So We Pay Our Fact-checkers Well” Nast. This may be tough to disprove. It might be better to concede that Tom prefers to marry within his religion but add that there was no audition process. Sometimes it’s better to lower the temperatutre than fight the fire.

WINNER OF THE WEEK: The PR Verdict: A (PR Perfect) for Michelle Obama. Style met substance and captured the pundits and the public imagination. Huffington Postand others hailed Michelle Obama at the DNC, but when Dem-adversarial Fox News gives you the high-five, you’ve done your job well. And those arms! We couldn’t take our eyes off them.

And finally:

THERE’S-NO-“THERE” -THERE PR: Katie Holmes talks exclusively to People TV about why “she is not afraid of makeup.” Nearly two minutes of content-free product placement by cosmetic company Bobbi Brown. Why does Katie love makeup, how did she get over her make-up fears, and what secrets did her mother tell her the about hidden world of foundation? We’re astonished (truly).

(Editor’s note – a previous mention regarding Julian Assange has been withdrawn due to an editing error. Please disregard).

The PR Verdict: “D” (It’s a Dud) for the Vatican not publicly backing their new press rep, Greg Burke.

Are the Vatican’s PR troubles coming to an end? The Vatican has been looking around for someone to help its beleaguered image, following a series of ongoing PR disasters. The center of Catholicism announced earlier this week the appointment of a new Communications Director–Greg Burke, a 52-year-old American who has covered the Vatican for Fox News. Presumably he will be taking the organization into a new world of “fair and balanced” PR.

When organizations look externally for a PR adviser, it’s usually due to the unhappy realization that no one likes its messaging. In this case, when dealing with a 2,000 year old institution, it remains to be seen how much flexibility Burke has to fashion messages. Announcing his appointment, he explained to the media what a Communication Director does, describing the position as a “strategy job.” He said, “It’s very simple to explain, not so easy to execute: to formulate the message and try to make sure everyone remains on message.”

Strangely, the key person commenting to the media on his appointment seemed to be Burke himself. Where were the Vatican’s leaders welcoming him to the fold and confirming that its PR is about to turn the page?

The PR Verdict: “D” (It’s a Dud) for the Vatican for its handling of the announcement and hiring of its new head honcho.

PR Takeaway: Start as you mean to go on. If a new hire is being brought in to change things up, then a strong public signal of this intention needs to be sent. Having Burke speak to the media about his own appointment without ringing endorsement from the people who hired him already makes him look lame and isolated. Next time, bosses, give your new hire firepower by welcoming and backing him publicly so that the organization and its stakeholders understand change is coming. And new hire, leave your announcement to the bosses and start talking only once your feet are under the table.

Can announcements about new public relations staff ever be made by the PR staff themselves, or does this send the wrong message? Give us your PR Verdict!

One of the more unintentionally instructive interviews on the Trayvon Martin case was Bill O’Reilly’s Friday interview on Fox with the mother of the murdered teenager. For media trainers, SybrinaFulton’s interview was a fine example of control and consistency of message, despite the prodding of the host.

O’Reilly did most of the talking during the interview, asking plainly rhetorical questions while implicitly asserting that he was on the fair and balanced side of the debate. He offered assistance to his guest as the trial approaches saying “if you have anything you need, you come right to me”. Sadly it was never clear what this meant.

At the beginning of the interview, O’Reilly asked imploringly “was I wrong to say that Al Sharpton should apologize?” referring to comments made by the activist at an earlier press conference. Sybrina Fulton replied with calm sincerity “You want me to comment on that? I don’t know everything that’s behind it. …… So I’m not sure what response you want.” For once, O’Reilly gave in and moved on.

The PR Verdict: “A” for Sybrina Fulton. For grace under pressure and for not being sidetracked into a side issue .

PR Takeaway: When in doubt, bat the question back and repeat your key message. Sybrina Fulton was clear with a simple demand: her son’s death to be duly investigated. “I’m not sure what response you want,” was a line in the sand. She was not going to be pushed into a corner fighting someone else’s PR battle.

The PR Verdict: "A" for both sides using the same word for opposing reasons.

What’s in a name? Yesterday the US Supreme Court began a review of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.

Obamacare has become a derogatory term used by Republicans to fire up the conservative tea-party base. Michelle Bachmann, prior to pulling out of the debates used it no less that 230 times in media appearances. Fox News repeated the word over 300 times in the last three weeks. In PR terms, Obamacare became shorthand for galvanising opposition and laying full blame for “socialised medicine” at Obama’s door.

Democrats protested use of the word, considering it a disparaging reference and opposed its use in congressional debates. But then something changed. Democrats have finally recognized the PR gift handed to them. It’s now going to be used by the President and his PR campaigners as they head into the election.

The PR Verdict: “A” for both sides using the same word for opposing reasons. With one word Republicans successfully galvanised opposition. Meanwhile Democrats have sensibly decided if you can’t beat em join them.

Obama kicked off changing terminology by saying he has “no problem” with people saying ‘Obama cares.” Nine months later the Obama camp has started a Twitter campaign “If you’re proud of Obama care and tired of the other side using it as a dirty word, complete this sentence “ I like Obamacare because…..” Going from dirty word to a halo word is the new PR challenge for the Democrats while keeping it a dirty word will now be the PR task for Republicans.